Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mr.A.Narayanan vs M/S.Pandian Stores
2021 Latest Caselaw 14177 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14177 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2021

Madras High Court
Mr.A.Narayanan vs M/S.Pandian Stores on 15 July, 2021
                                                                            C.S.No.775 of 2006

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 15.07.2021
                                                        CORAM:
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                   C.S.No.775 of 2006
                                                          and
                                                A.Nos.4242 & 4243 of 2006

                     Mr.A.Narayanan,
                     1127, Periyar Nagar,
                     Third Street, Red Hills,
                     Chennai – 600 052.                                          ...Plaintiff
                                                           Vs.

                     1.

M/s.Pandian Stores 73-B&C, New Military Road, Avadi, Chennai – 54.

Rep. By its Partners, P T Balaji & R Parkunam

2.P.T.Balaji Srikrishna Modern Rice Mills, Palli Kuppam, Red Hills, Chennai – 600 052.

3.R.Parkunam, M/s.Pandian Stores, 73-B&C, New Military Road, Avadi, Chennai – 54.

4.Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill rep. By Govindasamy Naidu & Balu Naidu, Palli Kuppam, Red Hills, Chennai – 600 052.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.775 of 2006

5.Balaji Traders No.9, Anna Pillai Street, Chennai – 600 001. ...Defendants

Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side rules r/w. Sections. 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying as follows:-

a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, distributors, stockists, franchisees, successors in interest, representatives or anybody claiming through them from manufacturing, hulling, stocking, marketing, advertising in any form and infringing the plaintiff's registered Trade Marks “KUTHUVILAKKU” by use of the Trade Marks “PTB KUTHUVILAKKU”or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered Trade Marks or in any other manner whatsoever;

b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, distributors, stockists, franchisees, successors in interest, representatives or anybody claiming through them from in any manner marketing, hulling, stocking, marketing and advertising in any form and passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants' aforesaid products as and for the plaintiff's aforesaid products by use of the trade marks “PTB KUTHUVILAKKU” or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade marks “KUTHUVILAKKU” or in any other manner whatsoever;

c) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, distributors, stockists, franchisees, successors in interest,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.775 of 2006

representatives or anybody claiming through them from manufacturing, hulling, stocking, marketing, advertising in any form and infring the plaintiff's copy right contained in the artistic work of the registered Trade Marks “KUTHUVILAKKU” by use of the artistic works associated with the Trade Marks “PTB KUTHUVILAKKU” or any artistic work and copy right deceptively similar to plaintiff's artistic work and copy right or in any other manner whatsoever;

d) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, distributors, stockists, franchisees, successors in interest, representatives or anybody claiming through them from in any manner marketing, hulling, stocking, marketing and advertising in any form and passing off and enabling others to pass off the defendants' aforesaid products as and for the plaintiff's aforesaid products by use of the trade marks “PTB DEEPAM” or any mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade marks “DEEPAM” or in any other manner whatsoever;

e) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, distributors, stockists, franchisees, successors in interest, representatives or anybody claiming through them from manufacturing, hulling, stocking, marketing, advertising in any form and infringing the plaintiff's copy right contained in the artistic work of the Trade Marks “DEEPAM” by use of the artistic works associated with Trade Marks “PTB DEEPAM” or any artistic work and copy right deceptively similar to plaintiff's artistic work and copy right or in any other manner whatsoever;

f) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit the factory /

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.775 of 2006

premises / shops / mill / dealers, of the defendants or wherever necessary in order to seize and take into custody the various infringing bags, invoices, records and all other relevant documents connected with the sale of rice under the trade marks PTB DEEPAM AND PTB KUTHUVILAKKU or any deceptive variation thereof like DEEPAM AND KUTHUVILAKKU and to submit their report to this Hon'ble Court;

g) for a declaration directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all bags, labels, dyes, blocks, plates, moulds, screen prints, packing materials, visiting cards, letter heads, printer bills, cartons, sachets and other materials bearing the infringing “PTB DEEPAM / PTB KUTHUVILAKKU” marks or any marks deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark and artistic work “DEEPAM and KUTHUVILAKKU” LABEL;

h) direction to the defendants to submit particulars of sales effected by them under the trade mark PTB DEEPAM AND PTB KUTHUVILAKKU; and to render accounts in respect of the unlawful gain made by them in the above manner;

i) for costs of the suit; and

j) pass such further or other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

                                              For Plaintiff        : Mr.Madhuvaneswaran
                                                                          for Mr.S.Balachandran
                                              For Defendants       : No Appearance






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  C.S.No.775 of 2006

                                                     JUDGMENT

Mr.Madhuvaneswaran representing Mr.S.Balachandran, learned

counsel for the plaintiff would submit that they have got instructions to

withdraw the suit.

2.Recording the said statement, this suit is dismissed as

withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.

15.07.2021 kkn

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking

List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff:

Nil

List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendants:

Nil

15.07.2021 kkn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.775 of 2006

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

C.S.No.775 of 2006 and A.Nos.4242 & 4243 of 2006

15.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter